I haven't played it yet, so I'll let my final thoughts be after a few rounds of combat.

But these are my initial thoughts:

Likes: I like that they're "typed". Table I, Table II, etc. So when it comes to homebrew, we can say they're Crit Table III, or whatever. I'm wondering if the wording should be changed to Crit Type instead of Table.

Dislikes: The charts in general. I think they're too long, specific and restrictive. I like it better when the GM (or even the players) can take liberties with the gory details, but the mechanical effects are standardized. For example Crit Table III, roll 9, should just read: +2d6 damage, target loses 10' movement. With maybe an example in parenthesis (damage to legs). I think the chart should be short enough to fit on the character sheet, maybe 12 (0 or less to 10+) possibilities per table.

For example Crit Table III, roll 9, should just read: +2d6 damage, target loses 10' movement. With maybe an example in parenthesis (damage to legs). I think the chart should be short enough to fit on the character sheet, maybe 12 (0 or less to 10+) possibilities per table.

But then GG can't sell you an eight page GM Screen full of fun charts!!

Dislikes: The charts in general. I think they're too long, specific and restrictive. I like it better when the GM (or even the players) can take liberties with the gory details, but the mechanical effects are standardized. For example Crit Table III, roll 9, should just read: +2d6 damage, target loses 10' movement. With maybe an example in parenthesis (damage to legs). I think the chart should be short enough to fit on the character sheet, maybe 12 (0 or less to 10+) possibilities per table.

Looking at the charts it looks like there is going to need to be a bit of player/GM poetic license with the results.

I'm not sure how a Thief's blow with a club would "Strike through the ear canal enters the brain" or how Warrior's "Hammering strike to torso crushes lesser organs to paste." would happen with a dagger. I

That said, I think the charts are a great aid for more descriptive combats. They're a good start from players and GMs that have grown accustomed to hour long combats that aren't much more than "I use power X for Y damage and mechanical effect Z" and "I shift 1 square to get a flanking bonus".

It's a pretty easy to ad-lib a more appropriate description or reproduce the charts with nothing but crunchy bits. I think the descriptions of the crit results do a lot to set the tone of the game and help get gamers who grew up with 3.5 and 4e into the spirit of things.

I'm not sure how a Thief's blow with a club would "Strike through the ear canal enters the brain" or how Warrior's "Hammering strike to torso crushes lesser organs to paste." would happen with a dagger.

Well, a club that enters the brain via the ear probably rips the face clean off as well. And a organ crush dagger probably went in sideways and out the back.

Someone previously stated that the crit charts should be move mechanical and put the descriptions in parentheses as examples.

That said, I think the charts are a great aid for more descriptive combats. They're a good start from players and GMs that have grown accustomed to hour long combats that aren't much more than "I use power X for Y damage and mechanical effect Z" and "I shift 1 square to get a flanking bonus".

It's a pretty easy to ad-lib a more appropriate description or reproduce the charts with nothing but crunchy bits. I think the descriptions of the crit results do a lot to set the tone of the game and help get gamers who grew up with 3.5 and 4e into the spirit of things.

That's the idea. I routinely "fudge" the descriptive part of the results. After a while it becomes easy and fun...it just flows from the circumstances of the combat.

As for monsters, the final rules include specific crit tables for un-dead, demons, giants, dragons, and a couple other iconic monster types that I'm forgetting. Dragon crits are awesome. There's also a generic monster crit table, and the various humanoid types use the warrior crit tables.

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." -- Gary Gygax"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." -- Gary Gygax"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson

Having seen the imfamous 8-panel DMing screen in picture recently (that's 8-panels, 16 sides, mostly charts and some artwork, apparently), I am again feeling trepidation about the ammount of charts in this game.

Having looked over the critical hit charts, there seems to be a lot of redundancy. Is there any reason some of them couldn't be combined, and simply have greater dice with the potential to roll higher numbers be what differentiates one class from another?

Having looked over the critical hit charts, there seems to be a lot of redundancy. Is there any reason some of them couldn't be combined, and simply have greater dice with the potential to roll higher numbers be what differentiates one class from another?

I would prefer this as well. If there were to be multiple different charts they should be by attack type (piercing vs slashing vs bashing vs bite vs energy (fire, electricity, etc) ).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum